Why would I prefer to describe the poetic by inventing, like Gödel and his theorem, another language alongside this language? Wouldn’t this be, in fact, a poem — one definition of how poems operate? Why would I rather point toward a photograph of someone standing in a flooded field, chest-high in water, holding a rescued Nigerian Dwarf goat! Why would I rather construct a diagram showing how poems that insist on language as a mode of experience (as opposed to being reports on or records of some “felt” experience in the past) are usually the poems where the most interesting thinking is taking place, where the discourses of power that traverse language and body are most effectively resisted, dismantled, defused, or re-fused in a way that extends new and more just conceptions of the human into the world? Why do I distrust every word in that sentence! Is it because the art of the revolution must never represent the revolution? Yes!